If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Does everyone else find it funny that liberals want to ban guns but legalize drugs? In 2010, there were 31,000+ gun related deaths(suicide/homicide/accident) however there were 38,000+ deaths due to drug overdoses.

Progressives made drugs illegal in the first place, they even had alcohol illegal for a time, they are riding a different hobby horse this time. Politicians have thought that by spouting the mantra that they are saving the children it will help them hold their political power, there is also the obvious fact that the people will have less power and also that a drugged population is even less powerful.

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.

Does everyone else find it funny that liberals want to ban guns but legalize drugs? In 2010, there were 31,000+ gun related deaths(suicide/homicide/accident) however there were 38,000+ deaths due to drug overdoses.

Or the fact that they want to ban smoking but are more than willing to let pot smokers suck all kinds of unfiltered crap into their lungs via a joint.

Does everyone else find it funny that liberals want to ban guns but legalize drugs? In 2010, there were 31,000+ gun related deaths(suicide/homicide/accident) however there were 38,000+ deaths due to drug overdoses.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown

I dont know how many murders are attributed to gun deaths but we know that according to ... "the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a report last August finding that CAFE contributes to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year."

And that ... "Depending on which study you choose, the total ranges from 41,600 to 124,800. To that figure we can add between 352,000 and 624,000 people suffering serious injuries, including being crippled for life. In the past thirty years, fuel standards have become one of the major causes of death and misery in the United States -- and one almost completely attributable to human stupidity and shortsightedness."

Also ... "According to the Brookings Institution, a 500-lb weight reduction of the average car increased annual highway fatalities by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000 and 19,500 per year. USA Today found that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards. Smaller cars accounted for up to 12,144 deaths in 1997, 37% of all vehicle fatalities for that year.

And finally ... "the same cast of fable-tellers who falsely accused Mitt Romney of murdering a steelworker’s cancer-stricken wife is now directly imposing a draconian environmental regulation that will cost untold American lives.

On Tuesday, the administration announced that it had finalized “historic” new fuel-efficiency standards. (Everything’s “historic” with these narcissists, isn’t it?) President Obama took a break from his historic fundraising drive to proclaim that “by the middle of the next decade, our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today. It’ll strengthen our nation’s energy security, it’s good for middle-class families, and it will help create an economy built to last.”

"All kinds of impressive results are being promised for this latest set of regulations. It will "save" 1.8 billion barrels of oil over an otherwise unspecified "program life." It will reduce CO2 emissions by 960 million metric tons. It will, in other words, do all the swell things that the previous standards somehow failed to do.

What we don't hear is how many motorists and passengers will be killed. The Obama mileage standards are jammed up right at the very edge of the technically feasible -- and perhaps beyond. Automobile technology has progressed substantially since the 1970s, and gas mileage can be increased by utilizing a number of technical advances including computerization, fuel injection, stop-start engines, and hybrid vehicles. But the Obama standards demand more. As in the original CAFE legislation, they demand cars that are chopped down, lightened, and diminished. They demand cars that will kill their drivers and passengers.

With these new standards, a kind of threshold has been passed. Liberal policies are killer policies. Since the early 1960s, liberal programs, whether dealing with criminal justice, health care, the environment, or any other aspect of society, have brought premature death to an increasing number of Americans."

I suppose my point being, our govt is pulling all the stops to impose new gun regulations (as if we dont have enough now... that are ignored or not enforced) which will not save one life. Yet, they completely ignore the onerous cafe standards (killing 10s of thousands and mutilating hundreds of thousands). Governments get away with things that private companies cant. Even policies that enable deaths outnumbering those of all American wars of the past seventy years. Deaths that are unnecessary, deaths that can be avoided, deaths that are being encouraged in order to solve problems that can be overcome in any number of other ways.

Odysseus: Gun control and suicide: the death rate amongst teens and early 20's adults in this country is three tiems the national average, and the restruictive gun laws have been in place a lot longer, yet the suicide rate continues. A lot of deaths are teens or early 20's and cars at highh speed. Want to bet that not all of them are "accidents"?

434 suicide deaths at ages 15 to 24 years were registered in Australia in 1995

Suicide accounted for 25 percent (n=350) of all male deaths and 17 percent (n=84) of all female deaths in this age group in 1995

Admission to hospital because of intentional self-injury is about 10 times as common as death due to suicide for young adults in Australia, and is more common for females than males.

The rate of suicide among males aged 15 to 24 in 1990 was about 3 times higher than the rate in 1960. The rate has not risen further since 1990.

Suicide rates for young Aboriginal males are higher than for non-Aboriginal males

Hanging and shooting are the commonest methods of suicide by young males; poisoning by solid or liquid substances and hanging are commonest for females.

The rate of suicide by means of hanging has risen greatly; shooting suicide has declined.

When countries for which suicide data are published by the World Health Organization are ranked according to rates for young males, Australia ranks in the highest third.

About 100 Australian boys and girls complete suicide each year. That's one bright light extinguished every four days. Research indicates that for every suicide there are 10 to 20 attempts. That equates to as many as five children a day across Australia.

Nearly half (49 per cent) of male suicide deaths in 2004 were by hanging.

Poisoning accounted for 28 per cent of male suicide deaths.

Hanging and poison accounted for the same percentage (40 per cent each) in female suicides.

Death by firearms and explosives has continued to decline from 420 suicides in 1994 (19 per cent of suicide deaths in that year) to 169 deaths by these methods in 2004 (representing 8 per cent of suicide deaths). (Heuvel, 2006)

They couldnt get access to guns, so they hanged themselves instead. All gun control has done is change the method...the kids are still dying. Gun control has nothing to do with youth or other suicide, save in the method of their death.

Net effect of gun control as a tool to slow the suicide rate: NIL. Something the gun grabbers will never admit.

Not everyone who is to the left of Barry Goldwater thinks, feels and acts the same way or supports the same thing.
By the metrics of this site, I'd be considered a Liberal. But then, I have nothing against guns or the NRA and support guns only being kept out of the hands of those convicted of violent offenses. Otherwise, I quite like guns. I don't view gun owners as evil in any way, shape or form.

I don't think Mao, Chavez, Fidel or Che were good people or admirable in any way. They were bloody, ruthless revolutionaries and dictators who preferred the way of totalitarianism because they knew the public didn't truly support them. In a Democratic Republic, the people rule through representation, and that is the way it should be.

I believe things like the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage should probably be left to the states to decide.

I don't believe in an all consuming burecracy and government regulating everything to death, but I also don't believe in Laissez-Faire Capitalism. We shouln't be the USSR but neither should we be the Wild West.

I believe in social programs, but only for those who actully need them. The main problem with some of our social programs is that they're stretched beyond what they were envisioned to be and have come to encompass more than they were ever intended to. Does that mean they should be entirely eliminated? I don't believe so, I just believe they need to be reformed.

I am not anti-business nor pro-labor. I believe both big business and powerful labor, when working properly, benefit society, and I believe both need to be kept in check in a way that is beneficial to both the employer and employee. Anti-trust laws protect corporations by creating competition; Corporation helps society, an employee helps the corporation by doing the work, a union protects the rights, benefits and treatment of the employee--Simple, but that's the way it should be.

I view Liberalism as in a general sense, a desire to reform certain things in society seen as unpleasant, using the Federal Government to do so. Sometimes, big government projects do yield worthwhile results, for example the Interstate Highway System and the Moon landing or the Civil Rights Acts of the '60s. Sometimes, the federal government is indeed needed. Not for every answer, but there are some areas I believe the Federal government does it better than state or local governments. Look at Little Rock, Arkansas in the '50s.

I believe in public education and that access to a decent education should be available no matter how much one has, but that the public education system has a lot of flaws that need fixing. But on that I am of the "mend it, don't end it" philosophy. Simply fix the problems--don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Socialism and Communism to me are quite different than Liberalism, as I see it. A Liberal would call for regulations over businesses in a capitalist society, wherein the businessman would still own and operate his business, just with regulations in the areas of environmental, work and product safety. A Socialist would argue for the utter nationalization of businesses, with control of the businesses operated by the state. A Communist would argue for a classless society where everyone in a sense owns the business, with no true boss.

A liberal, I feel, believes in the class system; that we have a upper, middle and lower class, and tend to try to strengthen the middle class and uplift the lower class, but accept that there will always be rich and poor people. A Socialist and a Communist feel that there should be no class--that the rich and poor should not exist, that a surgeon should make the same amount as a janitor--and that is just insanity.

A liberal, at least as I see it, is a reformer. A person trying to improve on capitalism, not end it or eliminate it. Socialism and Communism and other Marxist viewpoints view Capitalism as just a step to Communism, which is utopia to them. I believe regulated Capitalism to be the perfect form of government there is, and I believe within the framework of Capitalism, we can have things like public education or Social Security or Medicare.

Not everyone who is to the left of Barry Goldwater thinks, feels and acts the same way or supports the same thing.
By the metrics of this site, I'd be considered a Liberal. But then, I have nothing against guns or the NRA and support guns only being kept out of the hands of those convicted of violent offenses. Otherwise, I quite like guns. I don't view gun owners as evil in any way, shape or form.

I don't think Mao, Chavez, Fidel or Che were good people or admirable in any way. They were bloody, ruthless revolutionaries and dictators who preferred the way of totalitarianism because they knew the public didn't truly support them. In a Democratic Republic, the people rule through representation, and that is the way it should be.

I believe things like the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage should probably be left to the states to decide.

I don't believe in an all consuming burecracy and government regulating everything to death, but I also don't believe in Laissez-Faire Capitalism. We shouln't be the USSR but neither should we be the Wild West.

I believe in social programs, but only for those who actully need them. The main problem with some of our social programs is that they're stretched beyond what they were envisioned to be and have come to encompass more than they were ever intended to. Does that mean they should be entirely eliminated? I don't believe so, I just believe they need to be reformed.

I am not anti-business nor pro-labor. I believe both big business and powerful labor, when working properly, benefit society, and I believe both need to be kept in check in a way that is beneficial to both the employer and employee. Anti-trust laws protect corporations by creating competition; Corporation helps society, an employee helps the corporation by doing the work, a union protects the rights, benefits and treatment of the employee--Simple, but that's the way it should be.

I view Liberalism as in a general sense, a desire to reform certain things in society seen as unpleasant, using the Federal Government to do so. Sometimes, big government projects do yield worthwhile results, for example the Interstate Highway System and the Moon landing or the Civil Rights Acts of the '60s. Sometimes, the federal government is indeed needed. Not for every answer, but there are some areas I believe the Federal government does it better than state or local governments. Look at Little Rock, Arkansas in the '50s.

I believe in public education and that access to a decent education should be available no matter how much one has, but that the public education system has a lot of flaws that need fixing. But on that I am of the "mend it, don't end it" philosophy. Simply fix the problems--don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Socialism and Communism to me are quite different than Liberalism, as I see it. A Liberal would call for regulations over businesses in a capitalist society, wherein the businessman would still own and operate his business, just with regulations in the areas of environmental, work and product safety. A Socialist would argue for the utter nationalization of businesses, with control of the businesses operated by the state. A Communist would argue for a classless society where everyone in a sense owns the business, with no true boss.

A liberal, I feel, believes in the class system; that we have a upper, middle and lower class, and tend to try to strengthen the middle class and uplift the lower class, but accept that there will always be rich and poor people. A Socialist and a Communist feel that there should be no class--that the rich and poor should not exist, that a surgeon should make the same amount as a janitor--and that is just insanity.

A liberal, at least as I see it, is a reformer. A person trying to improve on capitalism, not end it or eliminate it. Socialism and Communism and other Marxist viewpoints view Capitalism as just a step to Communism, which is utopia to them. I believe regulated Capitalism to be the perfect form of government there is, and I believe within the framework of Capitalism, we can have things like public education or Social Security or Medicare.

Liberals want the government to control everything. This is why they are called socialists.

Most liberals are socialist and communist.. So they are one in the same. You won't find any Conservative that is a socialist. All Communists and Socialists are LIBERAL ...

Liberals do believe in class. Why do you think they are always pushing class warfare? The thing with it though that they don't care about the little guy. They only care about themselves and what it is in it for them.

Liberalism isn't trying to improve capitalism, they are trying to destroy it. They are trying to shove more socialism until everyone is dependent on the Government, at which point no one will get anything because no one is working to pay taxes. Socialism is all find and dandy until it runs out of other peoples money.

How is the hell is Capitalism a step to communism? They are completely opposite .... Where do you get your information from? Who ever is telling you this stuff doesn't know jack ...

Capitalism is a great thing. I also agree that we need some socialist groups. Like what you mentioned. But making everything government ran? I don't think so, scooter.

You just mentioned a big pile of crap. My head hurts now, I also felt my IQ drop from reading your post..

Liberals want the government to control everything. This is why they are called socialists.

Most liberals are socialist and communist.. So they are one in the same. You won't find any Conservative that is a socialist. All Communists and Socialists are LIBERAL ...

Liberals do believe in class. Why do you think they are always pushing class warfare? The thing with it though that they don't care about the little guy. They only care about themselves and what it is in it for them.

Liberalism isn't trying to improve capitalism, they are trying to destroy it. They are trying to shove more socialism until everyone is dependent on the Government, at which point no one will get anything because no one is working to pay taxes. Socialism is all find and dandy until it runs out of other peoples money.

How is the hell is Capitalism a step to communism? They are completely opposite .... Where do you get your information from? Who ever is telling you this stuff doesn't know jack ...

Capitalism is a great thing. I also agree that we need some socialist groups. Like what you mentioned. But making everything government ran? I don't think so, scooter.

You just mentioned a big pile of crap. My head hurts now, I also felt my IQ drop from reading your post..

As to the bolded...I don't believe that myself, but that is what Communists believe. Marx laid that out in the Communist Manifesto. He viewed society as a series of stages, from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism. To Marx and Marxists, capitalism is just a step in the road to communism. I don't believe in that myself...but that's what Marxists believe in.

I disagree with your assertions that most liberals are socialists or communists. Most people are Liberals. I know very few among the that would also call themselves Socialists or Communists.

Only hard core radicals want to destroy Capitalism. Liberal reformers just try to make Capitalism better. The New Deal for example basically made Capitalism better. Ask any real Socialist or Communist and they'll tell you how FDR was nothing but a sell out to Wall Street and how the New Deal protected Capitalism at a time when Capitalism could've died in the US.

As to the bolded...I don't believe that myself, but that is what Communists believe. Marx laid that out in the Communist Manifesto. He viewed society as a series of stages, from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism. To Marx and Marxists, capitalism is just a step in the road to communism. I don't believe in that myself...but that's what Marxists believe in.

I disagree with your assertions that most liberals are socialists or communists. Most people are Liberals. I know very few among the that would also call themselves Socialists or Communists.

Only hard core radicals want to destroy Capitalism. Liberal reformers just try to make Capitalism better. The New Deal for example basically made Capitalism better. Ask any real Socialist or Communist and they'll tell you how FDR was nothing but a sell out to Wall Street and how the New Deal protected Capitalism at a time when Capitalism could've died in the US.

That just goes to show that Marxists are stupid. And look at the way it is, ALL COMMUNISTS AND SOCIALISTS ARE LIBERALS. You will never find a Conservative that is a communist or socialist. As for FDR, he was not only the worst President we have ever had, he is also the father of the entitlement generation (And huge tax rates - his tax rates were as high as 94%). He started the socialistic programs we have today and has ruined the countries working class for it. Now all you have are a bunch of lazy people who refuse to get a job, and enjoy living off the people who work for what they have while calling welfare an entitlement. WELFARE IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT!

Another note about FDR: He was a major racist, and a major supporter of Unions. His policies were not helping, they were in fact making things worse. WW II is what got us out of the Great Depression, not FDR's New Deal. Tell that to a socialist agenda shoving history teacher.

Originally Posted by Janice

This thing that SquareDealer describes sounds like classic liberalism, not the liberalism that we see around us today.

I think he needs to learn a little more about what he is saying. Whoever is feeding him this crap is way off with their theories.